Smithsonian contract merely a distraction

Published 4:45 pm, Wednesday, September 11, 2013

I agree with the Connecticut Post that the GAO should investigate any conflicts, real or perceived, that the Smithsonian's contract for the Wright brothers' flyer may be causing for that institution.

However, both Whitehead and Wright supporters have followed a classic "red herring" logical fallacy by focusing so much on this contract. A red herring is a side issue used to distract attention from the main issue.

Let us suppose for a moment that the contract is voided. What does that say about the Whitehead flight claims?

The answer: absolutely nothing. The Whitehead evidence stands or falls on its own grounds, regardless of whether the Wrights (or any of the numerous other flight claimants) ever existed. Historians, even now, are in no way bound by any contract for a museum display piece.

I've written to this paper before expressing my skepticism about the Whitehead claims. As I pointed out then, my doubts are not based at all on any affinity for the Wrights. Those doubts are based solely on the quality of the evidence we have regarding Whitehead. Removing the Wright contract would not improve the spotty, contradictory quality of that evidence.

I look forward to an end of the focus on political chicanery so we can get back to a debate on the historical facts.